Reginald Villacorta1, Joel W Hay, Andrew Messali. 1. Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 3335 S. Figueroa St., Unit A, University Park Campus, UGW-Unit A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-7273, USA. rvillaco@usc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained. RESULTS: For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg. CONCLUSION: Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasis patients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patient psoriasis severity and time horizon.
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained. RESULTS: For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg. CONCLUSION: Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasispatients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patientpsoriasis severity and time horizon.
Authors: Angela Moore; Kenneth B Gordon; Sewon Kang; Alice Gottlieb; Bruce Freundlich; H Amy Xia; Seth R Stevens Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2006-11-17 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Andrew A Nelson; Daniel J Pearce; Alan B Fleischer; Rajesh Balkrishnan; Steven R Feldman Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Andrew P Yu; Jackson Tang; Jipan Xie; Eric Q Wu; Shiraz R Gupta; Yanjun Bao; Parvez M Mulani Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: K A Papp; S Tyring; M Lahfa; J Prinz; C E M Griffiths; A M Nakanishi; R Zitnik; P C M van de Kerkhof; Linda Melvin Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: William H Crown; Brian W Bresnahan; Lucinda S Orsini; Sean Kennedy; Craig Leonardi Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Kim A Papp; Richard G Langley; Mark Lebwohl; Gerald G Krueger; Philippe Szapary; Newman Yeilding; Cynthia Guzzo; Ming-Chun Hsu; Yuhua Wang; Shu Li; Lisa T Dooley; Kristian Reich Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-05-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph F Fowler; Mei Sheng Duh; Ludmila Rovba; Sharon Buteau; Lisa Pinheiro; Francis Lobo; Jennifer Sung; Joseph J Doyle; Andrine Swensen; David A Mallett; George Kosicki Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Diana Brixner; Gary Oderda; Joseph Biskupiak; Douglas S Burgoyne; Steven G Avey; Steven R Feldman Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2019-02